Favor The Wise

Feedback on two blog entries and incidents in the BlogHER chat remind me of issues in online communication.

Looking in on the chat around the BlogHER conference I am reminded of issues that arise again and again in online interactions. Since FIDO and then Usenet, we have navigated the difficulty of online communication which is in the presence of diversity not peers.

As a Wikipedian I converse with the 16 year old author of the Wikipedia article on British Monarchy - he lives in Ohio and as far as I know has never been to England. His article (a featured article on Wikipedia) reflects his well-intentioned but naive understanding of the subject. Between us we negotiate a rewrite that is a more accurate presentation of the facts - I am advocating the removal of opinion and common perceptions, and the simple presentation of the facts as befits an encyclopedia. But I will fess up that, as an English anti-monarchist, I believe the simple presentation of the facts serves my cause.
Within a day, our delicate negotiation is usurped by the self-righteous indignation of a UK student who embodies a completely different view of the matter and believes we should dilute the facts to represent the accepted point of view that the monarchy is powerless (nothing could, in fact, be further from the truth). None of us are experts, and though I am an Englishman and perhaps more knowledgeable of the facts, I do have an agenda that is served by the simple presentation of the facts – which is why I put the effort into the British Monarchy article in the first place.

In the BlogHER chat, we are amused by a visiting father-to-be who seems obsessed about why women do not talk about sex. We politely point out that this may not be an appropriate subject in the middle of our mother-blogger discussion but he persists. He can’t understand why the conference is not called BlogEVERYONE, he flirts with the ladies, and in a comedic finale leaves us because his dinner is ready. Guess who makes dinner at his house.

By virtue of assertive belligerence or fierce self righteousness the loud often dominate free expression and oppress the voice of the gentle, the compassionate and the wise. In the lands where free expression is possible it is too frequently sacrificed to those who can buy, through favor or cash, privileged access.

In the so-called “free world” the ignorant parade their agendas at the expense of the wise in a frequently unchallenged appeal to convention and steam over the quiet wisdom and suffering of the hidden, the complex and the unpopular.

The “free press” cannot help but distort our perception and our thinking by mediating facts through personality, and “balanced reporting” is constrained by the availability of the articulate on each side.
Freedom of speech is not a balanced thing. There is no requirement that the playing field be leveled. The loud too have the right to be heard; as much right as the meek, the poor and the uneducated. The ignorant – or merely those without the education to appreciate their predicament - have as much right to be heard as the wise.

Today the cause of peace in the world demands that those of us with the ability to speak well must defend those less able. That those of us with the education to appreciate the predicament of others, speak on their behalf.

Yet it is the responsibility of each of us first to listen. In the vast noise there are quiet voices that need to be heard. They will uplift us. They will alert us to injustice. They will inspire and awaken us. They will warn us of the coming storm and they will lead us to discovery. They will humble us.
It is the responsibility of each of us to discern. To think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. To dismiss the ignorant and favor the wise.